HE'S STILL PITCHING LIES!
"I am writing this in the last days of 2008 as I watch with dismay as vast numbers of people across the world, including many who should know better, have been duped by the mind-game called Operation Obama. Even people with some understanding of the conspiracy have said things like: 'Well, at least he's not Bush' and 'Well, at least it's great to see such a new spirit of hope'. No, he's not Bush - he's potentially far more dangerous; and what is the use of a spirit of 'hope' if it's based on a lie? In fact, what use is 'hope' at all?
Obama's wife, Michelle, who I wouldn't trust to tell me the date in a calendar factory, said that 'everything begins and ends with 'hope'. Utter nonsense. Hope is a meaningless emotion because its fruits are always in the future and, by definition, never in the NOW. Hope is like riding a carousel horse; no matter how fast you go . . . you never get closer to the one in front. The idea, however, is to persuade you to stay on the horse, despite the evitable disappointment, in the 'hope' that things will change. But they don't because the very system is designed to prevent it.
Obama's predominant mantra has been 'change'. Indeed, his massively-funded, record-breaking campaign was based on that one word - change. This is a technique used by Bill Clinton and many others and it is highly effective because, at any point, the system ensures that most people are not happy with the way life is. So, when you don't like the status quo, 'change' can be a potent message, even if, like Obama, you don't say what it means.
It has been vital to his success, and that of his controllers, that he has never specified what his 'hope', 'change', and that other mind-control trigger-word, 'believe', were referring to in terms of policy and the way society in general will be affected. Hope for what? Change what? Believe in what? To answer those questions with specifics would have been fatal to Obama's appeal.
I studied the military/government mind-control programs and techniques in great detail for many years during the late 1990s and across 2000, and the Obama 'phenomenon' is the most blatant mass-mind control operation you could wish to see. At its core the plan has been to make Obama the focus of everything you hope for, believe in and want to change. This is why it has been crucial for him not to specify and detail what is meant by his 'hope, 'change' and 'believe'.
However, I can tell you what those words mean in the context of the Obama mind-game. They mean whatever you decide they mean or want them to mean. The idea is for you to project all that you stand for onto him and so he becomes the symbol of you and how you see the world. Specifics would destroy that 'I am whatever you want me to be' scenario and so you don't get any detail, just 'hope', 'change', and 'believe'.
They don't want him to be seen only as 'the Messiah'; they also want him to be Abraham Lincoln, JFK, or Buddha - anyone you choose to project on him, for he is a blank page, blank screen and empty suit. Obama is a make-your-own, do-it-yourself leader, a projection of your own mind. (If you are still asleep, that is). If you are in any way awake, he's an open book.
'I am whatever you want me to be, for I am just a projection of you. And I got a big smile, see.'
There is no more powerful way of manipulating people than to tell them what they want to hear and to keep shut about anything they wouldn't like. Double-glazing salesmen are trained to pick up in general conversation what their target likes and dislikes and to respond accordingly in the way the product is sold. The technique is simply to tell the potential buyer what you have gleaned they want to be told. Obama comes from the same stable, but on a massively bigger scale and with a whole network of advisors and controllers, steeped in the art of manipulating minds, opinions and actions.
Obama's written-for-him speeches are not from the heart, but from the autocue. The 'heart' bit comes from extensive training and his Bill Clintonesque ability to 'mean it when he says it', a state of delivery that goes beyond mere acting. Tony Blair was trained in the same way. But if you take a step back and look at these people dispassionately you can clearly see the techniques they consciously employ. Blair is the most blatant fraud in the way he delivers a line, stops in mid-sentence for emphasis, and looks down for fake emotional effect. Obama is a little more slick, but from where I have been looking this past year, not much. And how have people not seen those cold eyes just above the painted smile?
You can watch his mind working, turning between autocue screens to his left and right, then straight down the camera for his key messages. 'From-the-heart' orators don't do that; they are too immersed in what they are feeling and saying to give even a passing thought to where they are looking or how the line is delivered.
I worked in television for more than a decade, often reading autocue while a director spoke in my ear telling me what cameras to look at. I have, since the early 1990s, spoken my truth on public stages across the world. I know, therefore, the difference between artificial autocue delivery and body language and talking from the heart without a script. Obama, I repeat, is coming from the autocue, not the heart. Obama's speeches are a mass of mind-control techniques and Neuro-Linguistic-Programming, or NLP, and they are carefully constructed to implant beliefs and perceptions into the mind of the viewer.
As I keep emphasizing, the whole Obama circus is an exercise in mass mind control and it has been so successful because so many people live their lives in a permanent state of trance. All of which brings me to the parallels with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and similar regimes throughout history. Obama may not look like Hitler, nor sound like Hitler, but the themes are just the same. Germany was in a terrible state economically and militarily in the 1930s in the aftermath of the First World War and the reparations inflicted on the country by the Rothschild/Illuminati- controlled Versailles 'Peace' Conference in 1919. From amid the chaos came the man that Germans saw then in much the same way that so many see Obama today. His name was Adolph Hitler and his oratory and rhetoric, again supported by a ritualistic presentation founded on mind-control techniques, made him appear to be the German 'messiah', the German Obama.
Hitler promised 'change', 'hope' and something to 'believe in' amidst the consequences of war and financial collapse. He spoke to vast rallies of adoring followers and a mass movement emerged in support of Hitler's vision of a new tomorrow. As the writer Webster Tarpley points out, fascism in its true sense is not just a 'Police State' imposed by a tiny hierarchy. It might end up like that, but first it is brought to power by a mass movement from within the people who have no understanding of what the 'change', hope' and 'believe' they are being offered really means. They just know that they want some because, as with Obama, they make it mean what they want it to mean. Only later do they see, to their horror, what they have signed up for. Obama is far more dangerous than Bush because he can sell a line to those who are in the trance while 'Boy Bush' could not do that on anything on the same scale. Bush was a transparent idiot without any communication skills who needed massive fraud at the polls to get him officially 'elected'. He could never be the figurehead to inspire a mass movement of the people to support some vacuous 'hope', 'change' and 'believe' when they don't even know what those words are supposed to mean. But Obama clearly can, because he has.
One of 'his' and his controllers' prime targets are the young, just as they were with the Nazis and the Hitler Youth Movement. If you think this parallel is far-fetched, read the following article. In line with this theme, the WorldNet Daily website reported:
'The official website of President-Elect Barack Obama, Change.gov, originally announced that Obama would 'require' all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs; but after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, the website's wording was softened. Originally, under the tab 'America Serves Change', the gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like Amer-Corps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.
Pay attention . . .
'Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year', the site announced.
Apart from the unspecified 'hope, 'change' and 'believe', few have any idea what Obama's policies will be. Public perception comes from having an 'image' of him, or a self-projection, not the fine print because Obama doesn't do fine print until the votes are cast and even then he will hide it in his windbag words.
There is an 'image' that Obama is against war, but no he's not. He says he's against the invasion of Iraq, though we'll see what he does about that in office. How can a man calling for more troops, including European troops, to be sent to Afghanistan be against war? He has also said he is prepared to bomb Pakistan and use military force to stop Iran building nuclear weapons and he has appointed Hillary 'Let's bomb 'em' Clinton (Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations) as Secretary of State and re-appointed Bush's 'Let's bomb 'em' Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates (Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations). So that's the 'change we can believe in', then.
Obama isn't against war at all and, if his controllers have their way, he will engage the US in even more foreign conflicts with the troops sent to their deaths, and the deaths of their targets, on a wave of oratory from the dark suit with the black face who would never go where he's sending them.
You only have to look at the cabal behind Obama, and those he has already appointed to his administration team, to see what his 'change' is truly planned to be. His mentor, svengali and main controller is Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, and the co-founder, with David Rockefeller, of the Illuminati's Trilateral Commission.
Brzezinski has admitted publicly that he began to fund and train what he would call today 'terrorists' in Afghanistan to oppose the Soviet-controlled government in the capital, Kabul, in the late 1970s. The idea, he said, was to entice the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan to protect the Kabul regime and thus give the rival superpower 'their Vietnam'. The plan worked at the cost of a million Afghan lives during the Soviet occupation from 1979 to 1989, a consequence that troubles Brzezinski not at all. Brzezinski's 'freedom fighters' would become known as the 'Mujahideen' and later the Taliban and what is claimed to be 'Al-Qaeda'.
This is the man behind 'anti-war', Barack Obama. It was common knowledge that President Carter would do nothing involving foreign policy without the okay from Brzezinski, the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission which chose Carter for president. It is one of many great ironies of the Obama presidency that he is demanding massive troop reinforcements to be sent to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban terrorists who were initially armed, trained and organised by Brzezinski, the man behind Obama. As Morpheus says in The Matrix: 'Fate, it seems, is not without its sense of irony'.
But then, in Brzezinski's case, it is not 'fate', but cold calculation that has brought it all about. The Poland-born Brzezinski has a fierce hatred of Russia and that is still one of his key targets, together with China. And if they are Brzezinski's targets, they are Obama's targets.
As an Illuminati operative, Brzezinski's aim is to create a world government, central bank, currency and army - a global dictatorship - underpinned by a micro chipped population connected to a global computer/satellite system. He wrote a book in 1970, Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, in which he described the global society that he and the Illuminati seek to impose:
'The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.'
He also said in the same book nearly 40 years ago:
'Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites ... [Whose] ties cut across national boundaries ... It is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook ... The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty ... Further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position.'
And what does his puppet, Obama, now say that Americans have to do to bring about 'change'? 'Make sacrifices'. As Mrs. Demagogue, Michelle, said:
"We need a different leadership because our souls are broken. We need to be inspired ... to make the sacrifices that are needed to push us to a different place."
You can bet that this will include sacrificing more sovereignty and freedom on the road to the global dictatorship described by Brzezinski for decades. Brzezinski's son, Mark, was an 'advisor' to the Obama campaign (doing what his father told him) and, in line with the American one-party-state, his other son, Ian, was foreign policy advisor to the McCain campaign (doing what his father told him). His daughter, the Obama-supporting Mika Brzezinski, reported the campaign for MSNBC television.
Obama has been the chosen one for a long time, a fact known only to a few in the deep inner circle, and his relationship with Brzezinski almost certainly goes back to the start of the 1980s when he attended the Ivy League, and big-time Illuminati, Columbia University where Brzezinski was head of the Institute for Communist Affairs. Obama simply will not talk in any detail about this period. He has been covertly funded and supported ever since by the Trilateral Commission and its network of foundations connecting into the Ford Foundation, for whom Obama's mother worked.
And a question: Does anyone really believe that someone, a 'man of
the people', could simply appear from apparently nowhere to run the
slickest and best-
The sources of Obama funding read like a Wall Street 'Who's Who' - Goldman Sachs, UBS, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, J.P. Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and so on. No wonder he went back on his pledge to accept the limitations of public funding for his campaign and instead took the no-limit option of 'private' funding. And those people are going to support a candidate who does not represent their best interests?? Oh please.
Obama and his seasoned network of professional manipulators, sorry his 'campaign team', sold the lie that he had refused to take funding from 'lobbyists', those who are paid to ensure that politicians frame legislation, or block it, in the interests of their clients.
But like everything that surrounds Obama, past and present, it's a sleight of hand and mouth. They funneled vast sums of money into the Obama accounts through law firms that represent lobbyists and lobby groups. It provided 'plausible denial' about funding from lobbyists while the money poured in from lobby interests via third parties.
Then there is the Jewish financier, George Soros, the multi-billionaire associate of Brzezinski and closely involved with the funding and marketing of Obama. Soros is a former board member of the Illuminati's Council on Foreign Relations and funds the European Council on Foreign Relations. In short, he is a major insider.
You can certainly see the Soros/Brzezinski techniques in the Obama 'revolution' in the United States. It was the complex and secretive network of Soros foundations and organizations, connected to the intelligence agencies of the US and Israel, that trained and funded students in the Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere in the art of mass protest and overthrowing governments.
These manufactured protests were sold to the world as 'peoples' revolutions', but it just so happened that when they were over and the old regime was removed the new leaders were those waiting in the wings all along - the puppets of Soros, Brzezinski and their associated networks.
Bush was surrounded by slavish pursuers of Israeli interests and so is Obama. Mr. 'Change' has pledged his unquestioning support for Israel to the point of 'pass the sick bag' and his vice-president, Joe Biden (Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations), is a vehement Zionist who makes a virtue of saying he will support Israel in all circumstances.
(I could have thrown up watching Biden at the DRC in Charlotte this year- 2012. His dramatic presentation to appear so very sincere and humble was sickening and pathetic! )
Obama has appointed the arch Zionist Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff and another super Zionist Jew, Dennis Ross, to be his Middle East Policy advisor. God help the Palestinians. Ross also served in the Bill Clinton and Father George Bush administrations. Oh, plenty of 'change' there, then.
Rahm Emanuel, a Chicago-born Congressman, is the son of Benjamin M. Emanuel, who was a member of the murderous Jewish terrorist organization, Irgun, which helped to bomb and terrorize Israel into existence. The Open Secrets website reports that Emanuel was the top House recipient in 2008 for election contributions from 'hedge funds, private equity firms and the larger securities/investment industry'.
Emanuel was also appointed by Bill Clinton to the board of the mortgage giant Freddie Mac in 2000 and his tenure coincided with a stream of scandals and financial irregularities. It famously had to be bailed out by the taxpayer amid the sub-prime mortgage debacle.
Emanuel, like Obama himself, is an asset of the 'Illinois Combine', a cross-party network of politicians and business interests that conspires to manipulate Chicago politics for their own benefit. Even before taking over at the White House, Emanuel faced calls for his resignation for alleged connections with the Rod Blagojevich scandal.
Obama is a monumental fraud who talks a good story, but lives a very different one. He won his first political office as a state senator in Chicago in 1996, not through the power of his policies, but by coldly abusing the electoral process.
Instead of running against his opponents and letting the people decide, he had his cronies challenge hundreds of names on the nomination papers of his Democratic primary rivals until they were all forced off the ballot by technicalities. He then ran unopposed. One of them, Gha-is Askia, says that Obama's behavior belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights:
'Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates? He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?'
Why? Because he would probably have lost and Obama isn't interested in losing by playing fair. He wants to win by any means necessary. The only voter-right he's interested in is the right to vote for him. He has also used his hatchet-men like Axelrod to employ scandal to discredit opponents to ensure his election when the real scandal is the truth about Obama himself. David Axelrod is Obama's 'narrator' and handler.
He is a classically corrupt main-chancer spawned from the Chicago political cesspit. His close connections, therefore, to seriously dodgy 'businessmen' and fraudsters like the now-jailed slum landlord Tony Rezko are exactly what you would expect."